Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18[edit]

File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DonCalo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is licensed as {{PD-Italy}}, but it's copyright status in the US is unclear. This was discussed at WP:MCQ#File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg where it was suggested that the file is likely PD in Italy, but not in the US. I'm pretty sure this means that the file needs to be treated as non-free content on Engosh Wikipedia. If that's the case, then the file is lacking the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c which means it can possibly be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6.

The reason I've started this discussion is because even if a rationale is provided, I'm not sure it would be valid per WP:JUSTONE given the way the file is currently being used in Giovanni Brusca. Non-free photos of deceased individuals are generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of stand-alone articles about the person depicted in the photo, but they are much harder to justify when used in other ways. This is a photo of the father of Brusca and the context for using it required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking: simply wanting the reader to see what Brusca's father looked like is not enough of a justification in my opinion. So, unless it can be shown that this is PD in both Italy and the US: or it's non-free use in the Brusca article or some other article can be justified per WP:NFCCP, I suggest delete for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:ManWolfSpiderManUnlimited.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ManWolfSpiderManUnlimited.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Crayak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-free road signs used in list article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 April 10. FASTILY 02:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:British Columbia Highway 113.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ganjamarsh.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 April 22. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganjamarsh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: image is not free (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC):File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Materialscientist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). [reply]

This photo has a subsisting copyright in the United States because Sweden has long-standing copyright relations with the United States. This could be converted to non-free use for use in John Franklin Enders, but would need to be removed from List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine ~ Rob13Talk 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. The most recent Swedish copyright law was adopted in 1994, before the URAA date of 1 January 1996. According to that law, photos taken before 1 January 1969 are out of copyright. In other words, {{PD-Sweden}} files automatically comply with URAA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty reasonable to say that URAA copyright does not apply to this image as it was already PD in Sweden before the URAA date. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights such "subsisting rights" apply to foreign-made works that would be copyrighted in the US if made there and it's not clear that this would be the case here given {{PD-US-no notice}}; especially when first made abroad such a photo is unlikely to have a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think this photo is covered by Swedish law, The Nobel website doesn’t indicate where such photos were taken before 2007. It is possible it was taken in the US, where Enders lived and worked. I’ve come across what appears to be a fuller copy at NAP.edu which says the photo was courtesy of "William Charles of Beverly". I’m not sure if this person is the photographer or not but it does suggest the photo might be covered by US law. Green Giant (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to non-free use. Following my earlier comment, this photo was almost certainly taken in the US, but the date is unclear. I have found an obituary at legacy.com, which says that a Leonard Levy bought the William Charles Studio in Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1950 and ran it for about 40 years. I suspect either Levy or one of his staff (if he had any) took this photo. Levy died in 2008 according to the obituary, so I think it will not be in the public domain in the US until 2079. Green Giant (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Swaminarayan charity old.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: The linked OTRS ticket does not mention this file. Going to go ahead and delete unless someone has new details/information to share. -FASTILY 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swaminarayan charity old.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AroundTheGlobe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10#File:Swaminarayan charity.jpg, this is just the older version. But the license is clear as mud. We need an explanation from the uploader or someone at OTRS to clarify it the license refers to this file as well. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The OTRS tag was added by User:Peripitus, and it seems that there were already two files in the history at that point. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Robert Hardy Rex Features.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. As noted, the use of this image is in violation of WP:NFCC#2 ℯxplicit 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Hardy Rex Features.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by There'sNoTime (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
The image was first discussed at Talk:Robert Hardy when the removal was attempted but then reinserted. As the image was further discussed, I discovered that it belongs to Rex Features, which requires a user to register on the behalf of one's own company. This implies that Rex Features has commercial interests in the image, which would fail WP:NFCC#2. However, the uploader (also an admin) disagrees by saying that using the image does not replace its original market role. The image was later published at (umm... mentioning the name would make other groan), which did not credit the original source, yet the uploader cited it until I corrected him. I don't want to continue discussing at the article talk page further as (I believe) local consensus does not override copyright concerns.

Honestly, I'm not nominating this image out of the WP:NFCC#1 concerns. Indeed, I contacted Hillsdale College, which uploaded videos of Robert Hardy's seminars; in response, they would not grant permission to let the videos be used, implying that using the videos would exceed fair use limits. I also contacted other video uploaders and photographers, yet I've not yet received their responses. A screenshot of Hardy in a BBC program(me) would be tolerable, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 resulted in endorsing deletion of another screenshot from a BBC news program(me) due to BBC's commercial interests in the USA. If someone else can upload an irreplaceable image that has very little commercial interests (or a freely licensed image), that would be nice. –George Ho (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The uploaded photo conforms to all the "base" written policy. It fully complies with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUREW, regarding :Non-free biographical images of the deceased. The image can be replaced in time. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the image of Robert Hardy or Rodney Bewes? George Ho (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you voted on the other, I'll figure that you meant Robert Hardy. Irreplaceable or not, Rex Features may still have commercial interests in this image. Per WP:NFC#UULP, the use is unacceptable. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it appears to be a commercial photograph from Rex Features Ltd., which is pretty specific about not allowing its use outside the terms of a license. --Holdek (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Resolved. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smkphotos (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License requires attribution but no author is specified. ~ Rob13Talk 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about copyright laws and rules, and I strongly suspect the original user Smkphotos, who is also the one who took the photo and made the composite, will not be back here soon. I do however have an email from Smkphotos saying that he was the one who took the photo. Would it be helpful if I forward this email somewhere somehow? Mark in wiki (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with accepting that on good faith; we just needed to know who the author actually was. Pinging relister Hhhhhkohhhhh (I tried typing that but decided copy/paste was the way to go...), who should be good to close this early as more-or-less withdrawn. ~ Rob13Talk 10:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Portsmouth FC crests[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete the PNG version; no consensus for any license change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portsmouth FC crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wutzwz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wanc.co.uk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These appear to be identical files uploaded under different formats. The svg is being used in the Portsmouth F.C., while the png is being used in Portsmouth F.C. Ladies. I am unable to see any differene between the versions of the logo, so I don't feel both are needed per WP:NFCC#3. The first question is which of the two should be kept and which one should be deleted. The svg appears to be user created and I able unable to verify that it is an original vector version provided by th club. There's been previously been considerable discussion regarding "non-official svgs" on both WT:NFC and WP:MCQ, and no clear-cut consensus has been established (as far as I can find) on their use, but in this case I don't think much if anything is lost for the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification by deleting the svg and keep the png.

The question has to do about the non-free use in Ladies article. The rationale provided for png is for the men's team article, and it appears that an IP (in their only edit) just added the file to the article with this edit without any consideration to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In the case of similar discussions involving the use of the type of logo, non-free use has been generally considered acceptable for articles about the men's team, but not the women's team per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI: the men's team has been seen as the "parent" entity, while women's and youth teams have been seen as "child" entities. I am inclined to say the same with respect to this particular use as well, but if others want to argue differently then please do. If the consensus is that the non-free use in the women's team is acceptable, then a rationale will need to be provided for it to whichever file is kept.

Lastly, I don't see how this can be considered {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it might be OK for {{Pd-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO#United States. In that case, the file would still be only a local file, but it would be treated as public domain for Wikipedia's purposes. If this is acceptable, then I think both files might be able to be kept; however, this will only be the case if the svg is treated as a simple reproduction of the original image and not a derivative work with its own copyright independent of the source image. In the latter case, Wikipedia could not keep the svg version per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't particularly see its use in the women's article as being necessary. Nonetheless, changing the license template and getting rid of the SVG may also be a good path. Not sure whether it would be worthy of any use though. !dave 15:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the PNG - I don't see any problem with having the logo on both articles, but we only need one version. Since SVGs are apparently okay, even for non-free works, I'd say we should delete the PNG and replace it with the SVG in the Portsmouth Ladies article. – PeeJay 16:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pattonb.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯxplicit 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pattonb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trehan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to qualify as fair use.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:FUC. Also the file reads "This is an historic image , which relates to an event that cannot be re-staged, therefore it would be impossible to provide a 'free' replacement, meeting the stated purpose." Clearly you don't like the image. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you have not read WP:NFCCP, in particular Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Would you care to explain how this low-resolution non-free image is "detrimental"; it definitely is no different to the other tank photos deleted previously. It is also stolen from the internet btw, which is another problem. Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tanks captured during the Battle of Asal Uttar. Qualifys for Fair Use, since there is no other, free image available connected to the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chalk19: This covers only one of the 10 NFCC, namely WP:NFCC#1 (and that, too, only in part). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — meets NFCC#8. The photo is a rare one. It shows the destroyed and abandoned Pakistani tanks (nearly 100, most of them US made Patton tanks) lined up by the Indian Army. The area has been known as "Patton Nagar" ever since. —MBL Talk 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The photo satisfies WP:NFCCP, especially the point #8. No similar image available. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the above !votes are invalid, especially if you actually read point#8. This is one amongst many non-free pictures of abandoned tanks during the 65 war. It is not even a picture of a live scene from the battlefront. It is not in any way "detrimental" to the understanding of the article (quoting the policy verbatim), nor is it helping "significantly increase" a readers' understanding of what is already in the article. It fails both criteria. And above all, it's uploaded as a copyright violation. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More like WP:IDONTLIKEIT from you. Sure the image helped you enough that you nominated it here, which goes well with your POV pushing. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs much more discussion about whether WP:NFCC#8 is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as handily failing WP:NFCC#8. Nothing at the article Battle of Asal Uttar discusses this particular arrangement of captured tanks. In fact, the article mentions the capture of the tanks twice: (1) "Ninety nine Pakistani tanks […] were destroyed or captured", and (2) "This battle led to the creation of Patton Nagar (or "Patton City") at the site of the battle […] because a large number of Patton tanks fielded by the Pakistani forces were either captured or destroyed at the scene." This very beige image does nothing to enhance readers' understanding of this reliably-sourced prose. Removing the copyrighted image from the infobox does not in any way inhibit readers' understanding of the reliably-sourced prose. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The image looks like a painting, is of poor quality - one cant even make out which kind of tanks have been lined up.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 08:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly qualifies free use. Nomination reads like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody before you has argued that this file is freely-usable; how is it "clearly" so? The only self-insertion of Mar4d (talk · contribs) in their nomination is the line "per my understanding of the policy", and I'm not sure how to interpret that as their saying "I don't like it." — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is how he is evading the fact that he just don't like the image. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I question your ability to know my motives, feelings, and personal thoughts without actually sharing my skull. Comment on content, not on the contributor. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep specifically per WP:NFCC#1 - a non-replaceable image. --RaviC (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Nom" has not given any policy based reasoning to delete image, but "my understanding". Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Basantar2.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, but remove from Indian Army. ℯxplicit 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basantar2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deepak~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:FUC. It does increase understanding of the article and misrepresenting uploader's statement won't do anything. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. Please see below. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. It's an obvious copyright violation. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs much more discussion about whether WP:NFCC#8 is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from Indian Army, where it clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. I'm neutral on the other article, where I think NFCC#8 could be argued either way. ~ Rob13Talk 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this image as failing WP:NFCC#8 in both of its use cases.

    In this image's rationale for use at Indian Army, it says "[the image's] inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of the concerned section of the article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public". The first claim made here is for "shows the subject of the concerned section", and this it does, accompanying the text "Pakistan suffered another major defeat on the western front during the battle of Basantar which was fought from 4 December to the 16th. By the end of the battle, about 66 Pakistani tanks were destroyed and 40 more were captured. In return, Pakistani forces were able to destroy only 11 Indian tanks." However, none of this text is better-understood with the image, and is not less-understood without it. Secondly, the claim of depicting "how the event […] was very historically significant to the general public" has no basis in the text.

    The other rationale is for use at Battle of Asal Uttar, though the image is used in the infobox of Battle of Basantar. In either case, it's rationale for use is "[the image's] inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public". The "subject of the article" is a wartime battle, and though there's uncited prose referring to "[a] fierce tank battle ensued where a Pakistani tank was taken down", that's not what this image depicts. As to showing "how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public": it's people standing on a tank; there's no derivation of public sentiment that can be drawn from it. Lastly, the non-free content guideline specifically lists the illustration of war for its own sake (w/o reliably-sourced critical commentary on the image itself) as an unacceptable use of non-free content. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:NFCCP#8, shows the seizure of Pakistani tank as part of the battle for Battle of Basantar. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets NFCCP #8, an important image that increases quality of the article. Razer(talk) 16:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Dragonchess images[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Until permission is forthcoming; if OTRS accepts a permission statement just ask for undeletion on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dragonchess 'The Ground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Dragonchess 'The Sky Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Dragonchess 'The Underground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A visit to the source indicates that these images are non-free, not CC 3.0 as indicated. That makes sense, since the board game itself is likely non-free. 165.91.13.209 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before uploading to WP I asked & received permission from the owner to use his photos for the WP article. The correspondence was done on the BGG site internal mail system. I saved copy of said correspondence. --IHTS (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso: If the copyright holder has given their permission to Wikipedia (not just to you) for the files to be uploaded under such a license, then I think there are two possibilities here: (1) they can add the licensing to the pages where files are found; or (2) they can provide verification via OTRS. There's more information about this in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. I'm not sure if forwarding the email(s) you received would be acceptable, so I'll ping Yunshui. Yunshui's an OTRS volunteer and should be able to provide more specific guidance. Regardless, since you are not the original copyright holder, the licensing cannot be verified on the source you've given, and the files do not appear old enough for c:COM:GOF, I believe some kind of OTRS verification is going to be needed. One thing about this license is that even though the copyright holder might still claim the image as being copyrighted on their website, anyone can get the image "free of copyright" from Wikipedia to use in any way they want (including derivatives and commercial use), and a "free" license cannot be revoked after the fact. Another thing is that if this license is eventually verified, there's no real reason to host this file locally on Wikipedia in my opinion, and it would be better off on Commons instead per WP:MTC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forwarded emails aren't generally accepted, I'm afraid; if you take the OTRS route we need the permission to be sent from Zac Dortch himself (ideally using the DoC wording). Copies of a conversation on another site's messaging system wouldn't constitute sufficient declaration of consent for OTRS purposes. Yunshui 雲水 08:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Figured as much, but thx. Appreciate the link (makes simpler for me). I'll see what I can do. p.s. I've no desire to become wiki-lawyer, but am curious: why isn't copy of copyright holder's response to "Wiki policy requires permission from the photo owner" of "Certainly. You have my permission to use any of my photos as you see fit. Thanks for asking." on Board Game Geek (photos' source) internal mail system not fulfillment of CC BY-SA 3.0 language permission test? (I don't mean to be a pain by asking.) p.p.s. Yunshui, do you mind if I use you as mentor at your Talk if I have Qs re permissions on other issues -- I have some photos removed from other articles too that I'd like to get restored, OTRS is a de-motivating & confusing house of mirrors to someone w/o experience etc. --IHTS (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you know you're welcome at my talkpage anytime; I'll help if I can. With regards to satiating your curiosity; the basic line taken at OTRS is that the copyright holder has to specifically state the terms of the licence they are releasing content under (I guess the statement above would count as releasing into the public domain, rather than a CC licence, but it's not 100% clear) - we also have to hear it from them. Statements like, "you can use my pictures on Wikipedia" aren't licence-specific enough, so we don't accept them. Appreciate that sending permission requests to OTRS is somewhat disheartening; if it makes you feel any better, reviewing them (at the time of writing there are well over 1,000 requests in the queue) is even less of a picnic... Yunshui 雲水 09:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! (And yeah, it makes me feel better. :lol: ) --IHTS (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kashinath-img.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Stephen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kashinath-img.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ganeshprasadkp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a screencap. Floydian τ ¢ 19:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tasya Teles.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tasya Teles.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Garyjones027 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFC#UUI #1 - no fair use pictures of living people. GRuban (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_January_18&oldid=1142598946"